plugin_manage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states that set_plugin_enabled 'Enable or disable an editor plugin in ProjectSettings' and scaffold_plugin 'Generate complete scaffolding', it does not mention side effects like file writes, potential overwrites, or whether changes are persisted. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap. The description offers only surface-level behavior without deeper context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: a concise summary line, three operations with signatures and defaults, and a note about the canonical call shape. It is front-loaded with the purpose and details the ops efficiently. The canonical call shape note is valuable for invoking correctly. No redundant sentences; it earns a 4 for good efficiency and organization.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has three distinct operations accessed via an op parameter, the description covers the core functionality and parameter meanings, and since an output schema exists, return values are not required. However, it misses contextual details such as error handling (e.g., plugin not found), whether operations require a project to be open, or any special behaviors (e.g., needing editor restart after enabling). These gaps prevent a higher score, so a 3 is appropriate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% property description coverage, but the description compensates well with inline signatures for each operation, including default values and brief explanations. For example, list_plugins states default addons_dir='res://addons', set_plugin_enabled explains plugin_name and enabled, and scaffold_plugin lists all parameters with defaults and a description. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not provide type constraints or detailed format expectations, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'EditorPlugin Discovery, Addon Enable/Disable, and Custom Plugin Scaffolding' and enumerates three specific operations (list_plugins, set_plugin_enabled, scaffold_plugin) with brief signatures. This makes the resource (editor plugins) and actions (list, enable/disable, scaffold) unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like editor_manage or editor_reload_plugin, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: if the agent needs to discover plugins, toggle them, or scaffold a new one, this is the tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no 'use this if' or 'do not use when' guidance. It also does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., project loaded) or limitations. This is an implied usage with no exclusions, warranting a 3 rather than a 2.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.